In my opinion, the most important thing that can come out of this lockout is a strict rookie wage scale, without it I feel this whole lockout would be a bust. That being said I have heard little in the media about that discussion.

My big two questions are: -Has anyone heard what the new rookie wage scale might look like?-Will it be in effect this season for the players taken in the 2011 draft, or are they going to be grandfathered in with the old system?

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

This is what I have found this morning via ESPN as far as aspects of what the wage scale might look like, but it doesn't mention any sort of rookie salary cap:

• Five-year contracts, with a team option for the fifth year.

• If the team option is exercised, in the fifth year the top 10 picks would receive a salary equal to the average of the top 10 player salaries at their respective positions. That money would be guaranteed if the option is exercised after the third year of the contract.

• If the team option is exercised, in the fifth year picks 11-32 would receive a salary equal to the average of the Nos. 3-25 salaries at their respective positions. That money would be guaranteed if the option is exercised after the third year of the contract.

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

In what way is it a bust without one? If they have an agreement that doesn't include one, or includes one that is meanlingless, and they are playing football for the next seven years or however long, why would it be a bust?

Re-upping the last deal would just be maintaining the status quo, granted the status quo would be better then no salary cap, no salary floor, and no draft, all of those threats sounded more like nuclear option scare tactics as opposed to realistic solution's.

No longer paying un-tested rookies ridiculous sum's of money, which can have long term effects on a teams ability to compete, would be a positive for the Owners, veterans, and fans. Only loser is the rookies, but if that rook was worth it in the first place he will benefit in the long run if some of that capital that would have gone to the rookies gets partially re-distributed amongst the veterans.

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

Personally, I think if they came out of this mess without a rookie wage scale, it would've been a waste. Rookie contracts have been spiralling out of control and ultimately hurting the game, what with rookies basically losing a year (and sometimes their careers) due to holdouts, and useful vets getting cut or not re-upped in order to make cap room to sign these guys.

I'm not one of the "who cares as long as they're playing" guys - I want them to improve upon the current system, and I'd be willing to lose games now to ensure the long-term health of the league.

If the owners don't want to pay rookies a ridiculous salary, there's an easy solution.

Don't pay the rookies a ridiculous salary.

If you don't want JaMarcus Russell to make a bazillion dollars, tell him to go screw himself and sit in the corner until he accepts your offer. He doesn't like it, he doesn't get to play football. Probably would have been the right move anyway, since he turned out to be such a POS.

They can't control themselves and want the players to force them to control themselves by putting artificial limits in place.

The only effect would be to lower player costs across the board. The rookies would have their salaries set at X, and then their next jump in salary would be based on the X, so it would be smaller than what free agents currently make. And of course there is no guarantee that any savings from not paying rookies so much would go toward the older players. The owners would simply pocket it.

The owners wanting a rookie wage scale has nothing to do with the health of the league or quality of play and everything to do with owners trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of the players. Because then JaMarcus Russell would be GUARANTEED to make more money than he is worth, every single time.

The rookie wage scale is the Owners way of protecting themselves from the free market. Which is hilarious because outside of the sports world this would be considered an act of socialism, which I would imagine most of the billionaire owners would consider a 4 letter word.

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

The owners have no market for rookies. They have player A or no return on investment and the investment (draft pick is a highly valuable asset they already invested). Any team that takes no return on investment, deeming the cost to high is fucked in terms of development and more importantly with their fan base. So you have a lack of a market w/ one side (the rookie) having a HUGE negotiating advantage and no direct competition (draft picks are not the same comparatively as vets).

You have a side of the negotiations that can hold one side hostage, knowing damn well they hold all the power then you shove it into the zero sum game of the salary cap (each dollar gained by one is lost by another) and you have vets losing money to unproven commodities that exist in an entirely different market.

The NBA soft cap is a system where owners needed protected from themselves.

If you don't want JaMarcus Russell to make a bazillion dollars, tell him to go screw himself and sit in the corner until he accepts your offer. He doesn't like it, he doesn't get to play football. Probably would have been the right move anyway, since he turned out to be such a POS.

This sounds incredibly naive, especially when not every owner would follow that path, leading to fan and player resentment towards owners that did as you suggest and didn't pony up the ransom to sign their high picks.

But I agree with the owners protecting themselves against themselves part. As with the salary cap, they realized they had to legislate fiscal responsibility for the good of the league. Good for them. Good for us. Not good for rookies, I guess, but I could give a fuck less about them.

If you don't want JaMarcus Russell to make a bazillion dollars, tell him to go screw himself and sit in the corner until he accepts your offer. He doesn't like it, he doesn't get to play football. Probably would have been the right move anyway, since he turned out to be such a POS.

This sounds incredibly naive, especially when not every owner would follow that path, leading to fan and player resentment towards owners that did as you suggest and didn't pony up the ransom to sign their high picks.

But I agree with the owners protecting themselves against themselves part. As with the salary cap, they realized they had to legislate fiscal responsibility for the good of the league. Good for them. Good for us. Not good for rookies, I guess, but I could give a fuck less about them.

There's not a veteran anywhere crying for the rookies and in theory they should have to prove their worth before getting it.

I like the rookie wage cap for no other reason that it affords vets the ability to continue careers. Plenty of cuts every year where a vet with more value is let go because bonus babies who haven't cut their teeth suck up up the cash.

I have no thoughts on what it does to a business model but I'm with Hiko: it just makes sense per se.

peeker643 wrote:There's not a veteran anywhere crying for the rookies and in theory they should have to prove their worth before getting it.

I like the rookie wage cap for no other reason that it affords vets the ability to continue careers. Plenty of cuts every year where a vet with more value is let go because bonus babies who haven't cut their teeth suck up up the cash.

Exactly. The NFLPA never had a problem with the rookie wage scale - they just wanted assurances that the players wouldn't get locked up too long (get their big 2nd contract early, if they'd earned it) and that the money the owners saved would get cycled to the vets instead of pocketed (thus, the hard floor that should be part of the new CBA).

Pay the players that have earned it, let the rookies prove themselves at the pro level first, no more holdouts. Not sure what there is to bitch about there.

hiko wrote: Pay the players that have earned it, let the rookies prove themselves at the pro level first, no more holdouts. Not sure what there is to bitch about there.

Could not agree more , the only injustice would be if the owners just pocketed that money instead of put it towards veterans , but I suppose having a higher salary minimum in relation to the cap would go along way in preventing that.

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other about the rookie wage scale. Whether it's in there or not, I don't see it affecting the quality of play in the NFL. I am skeptical of the claim that the money saved on rookies will go to vets. Never seems to work that way.

I do believe the players will be adversely affected in the long run as a rookie wage scale will bring down wages overall. But that's their problem.

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other about the rookie wage scale. Whether it's in there or not, I don't see it affecting the quality of play in the NFL. I am skeptical of the claim that the money saved on rookies will go to vets. Never seems to work that way.

I do believe the players will be adversely affected in the long run as a rookie wage scale will bring down wages overall. But that's their problem.

That's what the salary floor is meant to do. The owners didn't want that in there, the players did. It's meant to prevent the owners from pocketing the savings. There's a reason that teams like the Bengals and the Bills objected to it - now they will be required to spend at least a certain minimum amount on their roster.

e0y2e3 wrote:You act as if the teams below haven't been at or near the cap in the last five years and had to press reset.

Again (because I'm pretty sure I've made this point before), you're talking about a version of the league that expired sometime in the early 00s. Teams aren't resetting because of cap hell anymore; the cap has increased so much that there isn't any such thing as cap hell anymore.

Nnamdi leaving the Raiders has nothing to do with the Raiders' ability to afford him.

And the league's playoff team turnover doesn't have anything to do with the salary cap either.

The NFL has ceased to be what you fear the NBA would be with a low, hard cap, because: 1) it isn't low anymore and 2) franchise tags & other price controllers prevent the players from filling that space. Teams don't lose players they give a shit about losing because of the cap anymore. It just isn't happening.

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other about the rookie wage scale. Whether it's in there or not, I don't see it affecting the quality of play in the NFL. I am skeptical of the claim that the money saved on rookies will go to vets. Never seems to work that way.

I do believe the players will be adversely affected in the long run as a rookie wage scale will bring down wages overall. But that's their problem.

That's what the salary floor is meant to do. The owners didn't want that in there, the players did. It's meant to prevent the owners from pocketing the savings. There's a reason that teams like the Bengals and the Bills objected to it - now they will be required to spend at least a certain minimum amount on their roster.

And this is pretty much why MLB doesn't have a cap. They can't. There's not a chance in hell of a salary cap getting into MLB without a salary floor. And that salary floor would have to be higher than a lot of teams currently spend. In some cases much higher.

What if MLB said "OK, we are setting a hard cap at $100 million per team. The salary floor will be %75 of that. Marlins, get out your checkbook." What happens to the Marlins?

There are a lot of teams that simply couldn't afford it. At least not without NFL style revenue sharing, which I'm sure would just thrill the shit out of Steinbrenner, Henry, et al. It ain't happening.

We like to piss and moan about baseball economics like a salary cap is easy and would just cure everything, but it's never that simple.

I am not sure about all the paticulars of what exactly is in the new wage scale, but damn if whatever it is doesnt work. Von Miller and AJ Green already signed? Something that is very much needed for these young guys.

I thought I saw it was 30K a day with one day grace period this year only if a rookie is late to camp... in theory that would mean they all are in camp by Saturday unless they are idiots